Gloster F.5/34

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by ringo, Mar 31, 2006.

  1. ringo

    ringo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2006
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    LONDON
    Since the RAF appeared to have Spit and Hurricane production tied up, do you think the single seat Gloster F.5/34 would have been a good addition to FAA in the point defence roll?
    Lastly what would would aircraft be called Gloster Gull, Gremlin, Guardian etc.
     
  2. Jabberwocky

    Jabberwocky Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,090
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Teacher
    Location:
    Japan
    I doubt it.

    Given that the Mercury radial had difficulty producing its rated horsepower and that the thick wing of he unnamed Gloster fighter had very similar drawbacks to that of the Hurricane, it was probably pointless getting the F.5/34 off the ground when the Spitfire and Hurricane both demonstrated superior speed and climb for around the same weight, as well as having better potential for development.

    The Gloster entry was almost a 'super Gladiator'; much of the fuselage structure seems to be borrowed from the previous Gloster fighter. In many ways it looks similar to the Japanese A6M Zero, but without the smooth lines or pleasing curves of the Mitsubishi design

    A combination of production delays and the superior performance of the Spitfire and Hurricane stopped the Gloster entry from every really being an option. Far more interesting would of been a proposed version with a 1050hp Pegasus XVIII engine, instead of the 850hp Mercury. Despite being slightly larger and heavier, this would of really helped the poor power to weight ratio and bumped up level speed a bit. The main problem would of been that the early Pegasus engines had trouble with reliability and power, and weren't much good above 15,000 feet.This might of been a disadvantage in a BoB style engagement. It couldnt quite push out the horses at high altitude that the Merlin could (even the single stage ones).

    Still, with 1000-1050 hp engine, the Gloster fighter might of had some promise.
     
  3. cheddar cheese

    cheddar cheese Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    20,349
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    WSM, England
    Digressing slightly, the Gloster F.9/37 twin engined heavy fighter looked promising...
     
  4. Aggie08

    Aggie08 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,012
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Texas
    The nose looks pretty beau-ish.
     
  5. ringo

    ringo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2006
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    LONDON
    IMO the F.5/34 had more in common with the Dutch D.XXI than the Zero.
    The D.XXI flew with the Mercury, it also flew with the Krestrel, Twin Wasp, and H-S 12Y, plans were in hand for versions with Hercules, Merlin, and
    DB600H.
    The Taurus would have been another likely alternate.
     
  6. the lancaster kicks ass

    the lancaster kicks ass Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    maybe, however she needed a lot more powerful engines..........
     
  7. merlin

    merlin Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2006
    Messages:
    465
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Customer Service Manager
    Location:
    Cardiff
    Yes a small order for this Gloster single seater would have been an insurance policy against any problems with the Merlin.
    The top speed of this aircraft wasn't that much less than the Hurricane prototype, and this would be improved with a better engine later mercury or Taurnas.
    Name - I think 'Guardian' - need to start with a 'G'.
    And also the Gloster twin should also have been ordered, would've been a better plane to have than the Blenheim fighter! Name for that - howabout the 'Gemini'?
     
  8. the lancaster kicks ass

    the lancaster kicks ass Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    at the time we had little need for twin engined fighters.........
     
  9. Glider

    Glider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6,160
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Consellor
    Location:
    Lincolnshire
    The F.5/34 with a Tarus engine for some extra power to allow for the inevitable increase in weight which would have been incurred with Self Sealing tanks and some armour, may not have been the best fighter around.

    That said, it would have been a huge improvement on the Skua/Gladiator/Roc combination that the FAA had to use at the start of the war and would probably have been better than the Fulmar as well.
     
  10. the lancaster kicks ass

    the lancaster kicks ass Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    the FAA got little priority for fighters partly because they were seen to need only torpedo aircraft, and partly because, well, who the hell were they expected to go up against looking at pre-war carrier powers? Which European power's carrier fighters were they supposed to be fighting?
     
  11. Crow

    Crow New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    I reckon a better insurance fighter would have been the little Miles M20. Faster than a Hurricane even with fixed undercarriage, it would have made a great emergency fighter
     

    Attached Files:

  12. the lancaster kicks ass

    the lancaster kicks ass Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    yes but how long would it've taken to change over production lines? to retrain pilots? it's the change over in production times and the fact it came too late that she wasn't ordered..............
     
Loading...

Share This Page